Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Bear in mind that the hypothesis is formed in hindsight. National defense was not the purpose behind those public works projects at the time they were built, at least, not in the military sense. Their contribution to national defense became apparent during the war. After the war that realization seems to have been forgotten in favor of military Keynesianism, at least until Sputnik scared the nation into making new investments in schools and research. But by then national defense in the military sense was front and center, to such a great extent that Eisenhower felt he needed to warn against it. Grand public works could no longer be justified as benefiting the welfare of the nation, they had to be justified as necessary for national security.

I agree. I wonder why you don't see a strategy of "domestic spending as national defense" by the Dems. It owuldn;t be that tough to couch spending in those terms and most of the red staters eat that stuff for breakfast.

If you're asking about me, I see it, that just wasn't the subject I was addressing. If you're asking about the Democrats and why they don't use national security as a framework for justifying domestic spending, some of them do. Most of them don't because it doesn't appeal to their base, who tend to see domestic needs as better justifications for domestic spending. And as far as tactical political maneuvering goes, it would concede ground to Republicans, who are far more adept hawks (or at least used to be). One current issue where you'll find Democrats referencing national security to justify domestic spending is climate change, but it's usually not the argument at the top of their list of arguments. As far as the corporate media publicizing instances where Democrats have made the national security argument in a general manner, this seems to be a case where "man bites dog" doesn't hold. It seems to me that for them when it comes to beltway politics, the old scripts must not be challenged.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Your counter isn't really a counter, it's a question. Two questions actually, and both missing question marks. Here's a question for you. Once the government gets a hold of it, can it still be called capital?

Well, in the strictest definition of the word it's still capital, it's just stolen capital.

Stolen is pejorative.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Here's an answer to your non-question questions. Had the US government not taxed that capital, those who held it might well have invested it in the booming economy of Nazi Germany, following after Ford, IBM and Prescott Bush (How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power -- It's not about Nazi sympathies, just about greed).

Well, that's speculation obviously, as is required by the subject matter. [smile]

Yes, that's why I used the phrase "might well have".

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Taken further, how might heavy investment in the Nazi economy have affected the war, as well as the need for it? What about our ability to affect a non-martial outcome? All of these questions are of course speculative as well.

To the extent that WWII was a war of attrition, it probably would have meant more stuff for them to throw at us. As for affecting a non-martial outcome, given the bellicosity of Nazism, I think war was inevitable.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If you're asking about me, I see it, that just wasn't the subject I was addressing. If you're asking about the Democrats and why they don't use national security as a framework for justifying domestic spending, some of them do. Most of them don't because it doesn't appeal to their base, who tend to see domestic needs as better justifications for domestic spending. And as far as tactical political maneuvering goes, it would concede ground to Republicans, who are far more adept hawks (or at least used to be). One current issue where you'll find Democrats referencing national security to justify domestic spending is climate change, but it's usually not the argument at the top of their list of arguments. As far as the corporate media publicizing instances where Democrats have made the national security argument in a general manner, this seems to be a case where "man bites dog" doesn't hold. It seems to me that for them when it comes to beltway politics, the old scripts must not be challenged.

It seems like a missed opportunity really. A chance to work on the "weak on defense" tag they have and still push domestic spending, which is ostenisbly what they're about.

Quote:
Stolen is pejorative.

Taken, absconded, ceded, ganked, gaffled [smile]

Quote:
To the extent that WWII was a war of attrition, it probably would have meant more stuff for them to throw at us. As for affecting a non-martial outcome, given the bellicosity of Nazism, I think war was inevitable.

There's some pretty interesting work done on the treaty of Versaille and the effective end of WWI in large part causing WW2 etc. but I'm sure you're aware of that. The argument that always seemed most compelling to me was the economic hardships created by the treaty helped Hitler gain popular support that was crucial in his early campaigns. I think it's quite feasible that a better economic situation could have averted WW2, the bellicosity was largely a result of financial hardship IMO.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
It seems like a missed opportunity really. A chance to work on the "weak on defense" tag they have and still push domestic spending, which is ostenisbly
what they're about.

Those characterizations are stale, especially considering that 9/11 happened on the Republican's watch, they responded in a panic, stooped to lying in order to invade Iraq, sent troops into battle with insufficient body armor, seriously delayed upgrading humvees, funneled billions to their military contractor cronies, to say nothing of the billions they couldn't account for... You're right the Democrats have missed a messaging opportunity, but it's not the message you would supply them with.

// edit: to clarify this point - the people who usually make the "weak on defense" argument, no longer have standing to make it.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Stolen is pejorative.

Taken, absconded, ceded, ganked, gaffled [smile]

You ought to change your nick to Roget.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
To the extent that WWII was a war of attrition, it probably would have meant more stuff for them to throw at us. As for affecting a non-martial outcome, given the bellicosity of Nazism, I think war was inevitable.

There's some pretty interesting work done on the treaty of Versaille and the effective end of WWI in large part causing WW2 etc. but I'm sure you're aware of that. The argument that always seemed most compelling to me was the economic hardships created by the treaty helped Hitler gain popular support that was crucial in his early campaigns. I think it's quite feasible that a better economic situation could have averted WW2, the bellicosity was largely a result of financial hardship IMO.

Whatever the sources for it, Nazi bellicosity remained long after the financial hardship ended. But anyway, you're making a point about the 1920's, when the subject was the 1930's. You were asking where might private interests have invested their capital during the 1930's instead of having the US government use it for massive public works projects. What may or may not have worked in the 1920's to avert WWII isn't germane to discussing the options that were available in the 1930's. Ameliorating German financial hardships in the 1930's meant feeding the burgeoning Nazi war machine.

[Edited by - LessBread on August 29, 2009 3:02:57 PM]